The legislation, sought by big-city mayors and sponsored by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), will also have support from Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), giving it bipartisan cover other gun-control proposals lack.
The trafficking bill is considered easier to pass than universal background checks, where the central legislative action on gun control in the Senate remains focused. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has yet to agree with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirk on a background checks provision requiring private gun sellers maintain sales records.

The Judiciary Committee will hold a markup Thursday in which Leahy’s measure will be considered, along with an assault weapons ban amendment to be offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). And some Republican senators are trying to slow walk the proceedings by offering a slew of amendments to the Democratic gun bills.

Schumer, Manchin and Coburn have tried — unsuccessfully to this point — to reach an accord on background checks. But Coburn remains opposed to a key provision requiring private sellers to retain records, and it’s uncertain whether an agreement can be reached.

Schumer now plans to reintroduce a background checks proposal without any GOP backers in time for for Thursday’s markup in Judiciary, and the panel is expected to approve that bill. He and Manchin will then search for another Republican to sign onto a compromise proposal.

But failing to get Coburn’s backing is a blow to Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, who has led the push for new gun-control measures in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

People involved in the negotiations believe that with Coburn on board, Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and others would back the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said to “count me in” to anything with Coburn’s seal of approval.

NOTE - beware any gun control language - "ban" has generally meant no sales or manufacture - so if you OWN 8 AR15s you are safe

That is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You are saying it is wrong to own a gun even for the possible defense of you're own life. Say that to the people who have had their lives saved by guns.

I don't see you saying anywhere "Knife owners are the problem. Knives don't kill people, people who own knives kill people" or "Blunt object owners are the problem. Blunt objects don't kill people, people who own blunt objects kill people." And more people get killed every year by people with cars, knives, blunt objects, ladders, and bodily weapons (hands, feet, etc) than die due to people with guns. It's almost like you really don't give a flying fig about how many people die at all....just the people who die from GUNS.

As I tried to copy your sentence structure I noticed something too. You said "Gun OWNERS are the problem" and then said "Guns don't kill people, people WITH guns kill people". Why the change?

It's almost like even you know that statistically speaking, the vast majority of gun OWNERS have never shot and killed anyone? That most gun crimes that result in death are done by people who did not OWN the gun used in the crime?

It's almost like YOU KNOW that people who want to kill people are the problem, and that such people will use whatever they can as a weapon to accomplish that desire. At least gun owners only want to kill the people who decided to hurt or kill them first.

Gun owners who buy guns to protect their families kill or hurt their families more often than they kill or hurt intruders. Statistically speaking, the best protection you can offer your family is to not buy a gun.

1)There is ZERO in that article that even remotely backs up your statement that "gun owners who buy guns to protect their families" are responsible for killing or hurting their families more often than they kill or hurt intruders!

2) There's a reason we have different words for suicide and homicide.

3) The mysterious "health studies" done by the supposed "experts" are not linked to, and all the article really does is imply that killing yourself with a gun is the preferred method of choice because it's the most lethal.

These are my favorite kind of quotes used as if they mean something:

"Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times as likely to have a gun present as households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

Using the above logic, what if we could demonstrate that every single home in which a suicide occurred was ALSO three to five times as likely to have a cat present as households that did not experience a suicide? If cats weren't counted as a "risk factor" in the study...then who knows?

What the article IGNORES is that while 17,050 firearm suicides took place in homes in the US in 2005, and 3-5 times more of those took place in homes where there were guns present as opposed to in homes where no gun was present, millions and millions of suicides DID NOT TAKE PLACE in OTHER homes in which guns (and/or cats) are present all the time.

Guns owners are 4.46 times more likely to get shot in an assault than those not in possession.

Guns are for men who like to hold hard phallus shaped objects in one hand while they imagine themselves as all powerful heroes shooting other people. It's a form of public masturbation that machos like to use. Some buy corvettes, others buy guns. In all cases, these men have small penises and need to find compensation in material objects.

Using the above logic, what if we could demonstrate that every single home in which a suicide occurred was ALSO three to five times as likely to have a cat present as households that did not experience a suicide? If cats weren't counted as a "risk factor" in the study...then who knows?

Your calling out a correlation without causation logical fallacy. None exist because the guns we are talking about are what caused the suicides. There is direct causation. Your cat analogy falls flat because they have no causation in relation to the suicides. Unless you can show they pulled the trigger?

What the article IGNORES is that while 17,050 firearm suicides took place in homes in the US in 2005, and 3-5 times more of those took place in homes where there were guns present as opposed to in homes where no gun was present, millions and millions of suicides DID NOT TAKE PLACE in OTHER homes in which guns (and/or cats) are present all the time.

That doesn't matter. What the research shows is if you own a gun you greatly increase the chance of your family getting hurt. Buying a gun to protect your family does not work, it has the opposite effect. It endangers your family.

I'm sorry. A gun study done on a specific time period (2003-2006) on a specific demographic (people living in Philadelphia) in which half the participants were selected BECAUSE they had already BEEN shot during an assault can't possibly produce a whole lot of scientific findings that can be responsibly applied anywhere outside of that study.

Please provide scientific proof or evidence to support your arguments regarding guns and men, public masturbation and machos, and penis size vs compensation or I'll be forced to call them all the worst use of logical fallacies here to date. And that's saying a LOT.

"Your calling out a correlation without causation logical fallacy."

YES! I called out just ONE of the many used in this article

"None exist because the guns we are talking about are what caused the suicides. There is direct causation."

Um...nope....you ASSUME it's the guns the article talks about that caused the suicides this statement addresses. Which just proves my point about how articles like this make you ASSUME certain things when in fact they don't actually SAY what you assume they do.

The quote (read it again) does NOT say that the suicides were caused by GUNS. It does NOT say "gun-related suicides". It simply states that "homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times as likely to have a gun present as households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

See, here's the paragraph before the one I used previously, ALSO a stupid statement to make-

"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater."

WOW! Really? The "likelihood"??? They had to do research to conclude that? I conclude that in homes where natural gas is present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from fire or gas poisoning is much greater than in homes without natural gas present. And no research required!

"That doesn't matter. What the research shows is if you own a gun you greatly increase the chance of your family getting hurt. Buying a gun to protect your family does not work, it has the opposite effect. It endangers your family."

There is NO research shown in this article. Just mere mentions of it being done. So any ASSUMPTIONS made based on this article are not "proof" of anything other than naivete.

According to you. Everyone else has the right to disagree with your definition of violence and what is or is not justified.

"On top of that, violence is extremely ineffective."

Depends on what the violence is attempting to accomplish don't you think? I'd think that repeat criminals find it VERY effective or they wouldn't use it.

"Violence rarely prevents violence from happening in the first place."

Again, completely subjective. Just the THREAT of violence alone prevents violence from happening all the time. "I'm calling the police" can make violent people leave your home". A large, snarling, hungry dog often prevents violence from happening. Hell, I brush my teeth like a pro because the threat of the drills and pain and violence from my dentist is extremely effective.

And according to statistical reports, drawing a gun or defending oneself physically is extremely effective in preventing all kinds of things from happening.

(Yes, I realize that it's hard to know if it prevented actual violence or not because the people driven off by the self defense measures rarely come back and admit that their original intentions were violent, but I'll keep brushing my teeth even if I can't prove my dentist as violent intentions.)

"THREAT of violence alone prevents violence from happening all the time."
-Subjective and very hard to prove. I can find far more instance where the threat of violence did NOT deter more violence from happening.

Violence almost always causes more violence and does not fix any underlying problems that may have lead to the use of violence in the first place.

Violence caused Hitler to come to power in the first place and violence used against Hitler caused the Cold War and by extendtion the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Grenada Invasion, the occupation of Afghanistan by both the USSR and the USA, among most other international violent conflicts where the US participated.

Non-violence would have prevented Hitler from coming to power in the first place.

Chamberlain gave hitler land in exchange for peace. didnt work.
A non violent revolt against hitler ? very funny,......those " revolting "would have been murderd or rounded up and sent to the camps and killed there.

It is the underlying problems that lead to violence that will always lead to violence. Guns don't cause it. Knives don't cause it. Bullets don't cause it.

And when you've solved those problems, I'll be the first in line to destroy my guns and maybe even my knives if you can find something to replace their function in my kitchen, garage, and workshop. But until then, I'm going to use whatever means I deem necessary to protect myself and my loved ones from that violence if it ever enters OUR HOME.

The problem is that people are afraid of freedom. People are afraid of the unknown. Americans will continue to be oppressed as long as the violent are allowed to continue to rule with impunity over those who love freedom.